22 4. The Hampstead Judgement Contains Basic Factual Errors

As seasoned cover up merchants have long known, the best way to conduct a cover up is to get on the front foot, seize the initiative and present an essentially inverted narrative, where the perpetrators are the victims and the victims are perpetrators. As the Americans might put it, the best form of defence is offence. And so it was that Justice Pauffley announced grandly and unequivocally on the first page of her judgement that: “I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish “ Justice Pauffley, Hampstead judgement Page One. These sentences quite simply cannot possibly be true.

A Profound and Simple Problem: The Judgement is Not Factually Correct and Should Be Considered Invalid on this Basis

The judgement is not factually accurate. It makes claims that are provably false and must therefore surely be perceived to be entirely invalid because the foundational assumptions that underlie Justice Pauffley’s interpretation of events are not factual in basis and this can be simply and quickly proven.

The Factual Error that Proves the Judgement is Without Validity

On page 21 of the judgement, in reference to the police interviews Justice Pauffley writes that Fact No. 142. “As emerges from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them.”

The Justice states this without equivocation, yet when the recording of the police interviews are re-examined, it emerges that Witness G in fact never did retract his claim to have been sexually abused in the disabled toilet of a local swimming pool. Please note that the judgement is very specific and definitive, “withdraw their claims, all of them.”

The record of the police interview actually indicates that contrary to the judgement’s claims, witness G never did retract his claim relating to the sexual abuse at the swimming pool. It did not happen, so the claim that the judgement makes and one of its underlying foundations is factually incorrect.

The exchange from the September 17th Police interview: The Context

This is at the 9 minute 38 second mark of the September 17th interview of the male complainant / victim. Several retractions, important retractions have already been extracted from the child. It is both a reasonable and inescapable conclusion that the police officer was “tasked” by persons unknown to deliver the retraction, due to the officer’s behaviour in the interview. Regardless of those unproven allegations, if we imagine for the sake of argument that the Officer was tasked with extracting retractions, he probably would have felt that he had already succeeded at this point, because the witnesses were no longer going to be of any use in a courtroom. The witness has been discredited, because he has told two contradictory accounts of the same event on the record.

This is the final interview in a series that spanned over two hours of interviews with the male witness. This interview proves that the “Swimming pool “claims were never retracted.”The clock shows 11.18 at the time this exchange begins.

The Swimming Pool Affirmations

Interviewing Officer ”Tell me about the swimming pool, you told me lots of people in this disabled toilet ? (sexually abused you-unstated)” Male witness starts nodding his head as the policeman is speaking despite the officers subtly mocking tone. He nods repeatedly. “Yeah Yeah Yeah” he says nodding vigorously and stammering “Yeah that that that… ”before plainly stating “That’s true.” remember he is in ”retraction mode” he has made several retractions so he is clearly not under the spell of the mother’s partner yet he is absolutely unequivocal. “That’s true” Nodding vigorously repeatedly. Repeats it, “That is true yeah.”
I make it at five affirmations right there between the stammered yeahs and the “That’s true” repeated twice unequivocally, while nodding.

So the Officer, in line with his tactics throughout the interview of September 17th, tried to talk the victim out of the allegation for whatever reason, stating incredulously ”Even though you said you was (sic) only four and hadn’t been to that school (as a student-unstated)?” “No” indicating his disagreement with the officer’s assertion, he is not saying it did not happen, this is another affirmation as the boy’s words indicate. “No, they had like…they were friends” It is a bit garbled, “Teacher I knew a (name garbled and excised) from my sister. Who was in the school when I was four years old.” Meaning he was not there with the school but with his friends, including his older sister who it seems was at the school. He is clearly affirming the veracity of the claim even in “retraction mode”. “Interviewing Officer. ”So alright what we’ll try and do is sort out what’s true and what’s not”. At which point the subject is simply dropped.

Six Affirmations and a Lone Victory for Witness G over his Bullying Interviewer

At this point, the child achieves a lone victory in this interview, he actually wins the argument, he has the final say, the Interviewing Officer is defeated and so returns simply to the safe ground of the previous retractions. The topic is dropped at this point, and never raised again. The claim was quite simply never retracted and there is no possible valid reason for the police officer completely dropping the subject upon his failure to elicit the quick retraction he was transparently seeking and for which there cannot possibly be an innocent or honourable explanation. It is really that simple.

The Repeated Mantra of Intimidation

Prior to the witness breaking and offering a non-specific blanket retraction. The Interviewing Officer repeated his mantra of intimidation. “Look if you haven’t been telling the truth, if you have been telling lies, it is ok, everything will be all right as long as you just tell the truth now ok?” The implication of this is unmissable. The message is quite simply, “change your story now or you are in big trouble.”So the child on numerous occasions accedes to the intimidation as is completely natural given the maturity and power difference between the protagonists.

It is worth mentioning that the children had been living in Foster care for six days at this point, there was an intense vulnerability, the father was still allowed Skype contact which given the gravity of the allegations certainly seems extraordinary,

Blanket Retraction Coerced and Therefore Legally Worthless

Although Witness G did allow himself to be bullied into a semi blanket retraction, “None of it was true.” after repeated bouts of obvious and inexplicable intimidation from the previously empathetic Interviewing Officer. The context in which the blanket retraction was made combined with the bizarre manner in which the Interviewing Officer simply dropped the subject of the “Swimming pool” sexual abuse entirely when he was unable to bully and coerce a retraction from Witness G (and it never resurfaced in the witness G interview, his final police interview) mean that the blanket retraction is meaningless. It was extracted through unethical and transparent intimidation and can be safely and completely discounted on that basis.

The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from this pattern of behaviour is that “person’s unknown” tasked the Interviewing Officer to achieve retractions from the witnesses. Nothing else can possibly account for the complete lack of interest in the “swimming pool” allegations once the quick and easy retraction. was not forthcoming from Witness G.

This is a classic obfuscation tactic. Problems with your story? Mask all the evidence behind the “helpful parts” of the story you are promoting. Speak Only the “Good Parts” of the Narrative and obscure the truth with sustained misdirection. In order to avoid addressing or investigating the actual credible and professionally confirmed child abuse claims, and the police cover up that the judgement is intended to augment and complete, the Justice chooses to place at the core of the narrative the more indiscreet aspects of the Internet coverage of this case and the unintended victims of that indiscretion replace the actual child abuse victims as the victims in the Justice’s utterly flawed and almost completely fictitious judgement. A strange mixture of psychosis and naked cynicism.

The One Strong Part of the Establishment Narrative

The Justice chose well in the sense that the indiscretion of certain information released and the small number of unfortunate consequences of these indiscretions are actually the only parts of her judgement that bear even a passing resemblance to reality. So the “strong”; part of the Establishment narrative is deployed in order to mask the real story with an unfortunate sideshow that quite simply has no bearing on the veracity of the claims of abuse one way or the other.

This is an elementary fact that utterly eludes the apparently “beyond’ mediocre Judge in her pursuit of obfuscation, any obfuscation no matter how infantile. At the same time the actual sexual abuse claims and the multiple strands of evidence that support them are only even mentioned as an afterthought, whereupon they are subjected to an intense, inexplicable and completely irrational attack. The unavoidable conclusion that at the very least without doubt these children were interfered with in a disgusting manner and no-one has been prosecuted for it is simply not addressed.

The broad entirety of the claims are perhaps beyond my ken but the Medical Reports were unequivocal, there can be no other reading no matter how hard or how desperately Justice Pauffley grasps for one. It thus becomes clear that the Pauffley judgement was just the Crowning touch to another rather typical and despicable British Establishment cover up. No-one should be surprised as the cover ups number in the dozens and continue in the present day, not just in this story but many others.

History Will Condemn the Purveyors of Brazen Injustice

There is literally no doubt in my mind that in time the completely fallacious nature of Justice Pauffley’s judgement will be thoroughly exposed and she will be subjected to the ignominy of history’s assessment if nothing else.

The Judge brazenly tries to obfuscate the truth by concentrating on certain outlandish sounding claims and the indiscreet nature of some of the information released, in order to avoid investigating what is truly at the core of this story which is the children’s allegations, the police investigation and the results of the Medical examinations..

A Completely One Sided and Dishonest Account

The specific claims the children made are never addressed in their own right in the judgement, all evidence that indicates that sexual abuse has taken place is simply dismissed. On the other hand, all information that leans the other way is eagerly embraced even if the claims were made simultaneously by the same witness. You can’t do that and expect to be viewed as an honest or impartial adjudicator. Very simple.

All in all this is a ridiculous judgement full of claims that are beneath contempt and which the adjectives despicable and worthless do not even begin to describe. The Judge chose to attempt to defame any and all who had the temerity to notice the fact that the claims had veracity claiming without one scintilla of evidence these people had some kind of prurient interest, a claim for which the learned Justice did not see fit to provide any evidence to support! I found it particularly amusing because it was the police interview and the Medical reports that made me realise that “hang on, there is a cover up taking place here.” and neither the police interviews nor the Medical reports could ever conceivably be of prurient interest to anyone. Not even in the depraved parallel universe Justice Pauffley apparently inhabits

Dr Deborah Hodes Consultant Paediatrician an expert with decades of experience and she is unequivocal. Abuse occurred. Undeterred Justice Pauffley launched a sustained and inexplicable attack on Dr. Hodes and the evidence she discovered.

Cover-Ups Are Rather Obvious and Easy to Spot

Cover ups, logically only occur when there is a core of truth to the allegations being covered up. Allegations without foundation do not by definition require a cover up, only the true allegations require that so there is no other rational interpretation, based on the content of the September 17th Police interview with the male child that this is a cover up.

The Original Medical Reports, upon which Justice Pauffley launches a sustained and fallacious attack, for no known reason all speak to the same horrific truth. Many of the claims must have been true. Because nothing else can rationally explain either the nature of that September 17th interview, during which the witness is openly hounded into retractions, on one occasion having made seven successive affirmations of the claim, nor the wounds and symptoms found by Dr. Hodes during her two Medical examinations, nor this appalling judgement…

Justice Pauffley’s openly biased and fallacious judgement is grounded in basic and key errors of fact. The judgement will not stand the test of time because its aims were neither in intent or outcome the dissemination of truth, quite the opposite.

The core underlying assumptions Justice Pauffley brought to the case were based upon falsehoods. The Justice has clearly not achieved an adequate grasp of the case upon which to base her claims among which include the unmistakeable untruth at Fact No. 142 that “As emerges from the interviews themselves, both P and Q did indeed withdraw their claims, all of them.” as proven by the partial transcript provided earlier… The Interview continues for approximately another ten minutes, there was ample opportunity, but the Interviewing Officer chose never to raise the claims again. They were never retracted.

A Credible Legal Definition of Error and the Possible Consequences

“The nature of the error dictates the availability of a legal remedy. Generally speaking, mistaken or erroneous application of law will void or reverse a judgment in the matter. Conversely, errors or mistakes in facts, upon which a judge or jury relied in rendering a judgment or verdict, may or may not warrant reversal, depending upon other factors involved in the error. However, appellate decisions make a distinction—not so much between fact and law, but rather, between harmless error and reversible error—in deciding whether to let stand or vitiate a judgment or verdict.”

Despite the grandiloquent title, a High Court Justice such as Dame Pauffley is actually at the third tier of the English Judiciary. According to Wikipedia “A Justice of the High Court, commonly known as a ‘High Court judge’, is a judge of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, and represents the third highest level of judge in the courts of England and Wales. High Court judges are referred to as puisne (pronounced puny) judges. High Court Judges wear red and black robes.”

It is not uncommon for the senior Courts of Appeal to overturn in part or whole the flawed findings of High Court judgements such as Justice Pauffley’s Family Court Hampstead judgement. There are still multiple avenues of appeal in this case, and the words of a Veteran former British Detective Sergeant recently prove that there are presumably many similar individuals, quality individuals with courage, decency and intelligence, who work inside British Law Enforcement and know that this is wrong.

The Rule of Evil

The aggressive and even belligerent cover up is par for the course. We have seen the work of the likes of Justice Pauffley many times before. In Nebraska, in Washington DC, in Belgium the Netherlands and of course in Westminster. The cover up has achieved huge successes in the Hampstead case, but the facts are still there, staring any in the face who dare to look. It is really a shameful and distressing situation all around and it has certainly been nauseating to see alleged perpetrators prancing around in the controlled media proclaiming their victim-hood. Britain is sadly a grotesque and wicked parody of what it perceives itself to be.

According to the highly credible source the UK Column, members of the London Metropolitan Police were threatened to stay away from the Hampstead matter. I cannot prove that this happened but it fits perfectly with everything else we have seen in this case, it comes from a credible source and it speaks to what is really at the heart of the engineered social and moral breakdown of Western societies so that the “iconoclasts” may rebuild the world in their evil image. The infiltration and even subversion of the institutions of the British state by what appears to be a satanic death cult, as extreme as that sounds is apparently highly advanced. What other conclusion can be drawn from all this?

The rule of evil can either be accepted or opposed, but it cannot credibly be denied. The power and aggression and success of the Hampstead cover up all bellow the same unspeakable truth.